Compare the situation of the African American before slavery was abolished and now. Then, compare the situation of Native Americans before we stole their land and now. Whereas abolishing slavery has helped the African American, having their land stolen has had a tremendously detrimental affect on the Native American.

Like what?The 19th Century Democrat Party kicked the people off of their land. They were given different land. This was not just.

Modern-day:The Hualapai don't give a flip for the land they have (as evident by the trash levels) even though they were aloud to stay on their traditional lands (even though it was in the valley of the West Rim of the Grand Canyon).

And black people are blacks, not African Americans. There are plenty of white and brown people from North Africa.

At 6/16/2009 3:51:01 PM, wjmelements wrote:I visited one and it was the biggest joke/disappointment of my life.

They do not exist for your pleasure. Pity that.

It was the Hualapai Indian Reservation, and it was the worst slum I had ever seen. The descendents of the nature-loving Hualapai had trashed the land they were supposed to "treasure".

That's sad, but little better or worse than outside of reservations.

They had essentially abandoned their culture. They were wearing modern Western clothing, and as I was driven down the streets, a group of teenagers flicked me off.

They were engaging in their culture, just as you are. Or do you still wear a tricorn hat and swear allegiance to the Queen of England?

It's called self-determinism. They can change their culture with the times. As a sovereign nation, they have every right to.

They are all living in houses that were built for them for FREE (by the government) and off of welfare. Everyone was inside, watching television.

For many years the government prevented many Indian tribes from enjoying modern amenities (if they chose to, they would lose their land). I think free housing is a small concession to pay for years of genocide and abuse, frankly.

After we passed the slums, we passed through the bulk of the land, virtually unused (GRAND CANYON-FRONT PROPERTY). I saw no Hualapai in this part of the reservation.

Shouldn't you be happy that you have an unspoiled view of the Grand Canyon then?

My question is: Why is there still a Hualapai Indian Reservation?

Because handing them back all of their land with an apology would be unfeasible.

At 6/16/2009 3:51:01 PM, wjmelements wrote:I visited one and it was the biggest joke/disappointment of my life.

They do not exist for your pleasure. Pity that.

I was expecting to see some culture, at least.

They are all living in houses that were built for them for FREE (by the government) and off of welfare. Everyone was inside, watching television.

For many years the government prevented many Indian tribes from enjoying modern amenities (if they chose to, they would lose their land). I think free housing is a small concession to pay for years of genocide and abuse, frankly.

The Hualapai had it better than the large majority of other tribes when it comes to dealing with the government.

My question is: Why is there still a Hualapai Indian Reservation?

Because handing them back all of their land with an apology would be unfeasible.

Why are they separate from us in the first place? The original intent of returning most of their original lands to them was so that they could continue their religion (based off of the Colorado River and the Grand Canyon) and their religion (same).

At 6/16/2009 7:16:15 PM, mongeese wrote:However, by now, their culture is basically the European American culture, so why are we separate?

Historical reasons and treaties. Americans took over their land and gave them this in return, and it was a treaty that was signed by the then-government. Plus, Indians like having their own plot of land where they can do what they want, and they feel sort of independent.

Now, that being said, I find it a little silly to keep them running myself, especially when our culture has seeped in so much. Giving them no taxes as well - completely ludicrous. I am not one of those settlers that pushed them out and my current government did not make those decisions. They should have to pay taxes like everyone else. I mean, it isn't fair that I need to pay for a school in their reservation, but they don't pay any cost. I'm all for helping them, especially because a lot are destitute, but they aren't helpless nor are they dumb - they can chip in as well.

But, there is some point to them. Even though they have a lot of our culture in them, they still do practice their own culture, and they have their own tribal lands on which to do it. They aren't subject to discriminatory practices either from the government of the day or from the landowners of the day - they are the landowners, and they are their own government. A lot of them try to run like semi-independent areas, but they simply don't have enough support within to build up their economy and social services properly. If they were able to do this, I see the point in not forcing taxes, but since they aren't and they do rely on the government's services (healthcare, infrastructure, etc), they should pay taxes/

They cannot build up their economy due to government "aid". Because they don't have to do anything to live in a house and watch television all day, there is no reason for them to produce a surplus for market (wealth). If they do not produce, then we cannot tax them.

Compare the situation of the African American before slavery was abolished and now. Then, compare the situation of Native Americans before we stole their land and now. Whereas abolishing slavery has helped the African American, having their land stolen has had a tremendously detrimental affect on the Native American.

The entire reason Native Americans haven't improved (their situation sucked before the Europeans came along too) IS essentially the reservation system, as wjm pointed out. For all intents and purposes, Poejoe, the problem here is created by the "solution" you advocate.

It's called self-determinism. They can change their culture with the times. As a sovereign nation, they have every right to.

A sovereign nation isn't economically dependent on another sovereign nations.

"For many years the government prevented many Indian tribes from enjoying modern amenities (if they chose to, they would lose their land). I think free housing is a small concession to pay for years of genocide and abuse, frankly."Should I pay the debts of my great great grandpappy, whatever they are?

And no, by the way, the Native Americans have no "right" to the reservations. Rights are individual, not racial. Just like European Americans have no "Right" to the job that Mexican-Americans come in and do cheaper. If reservations were private property, it would be a different story, but a tribe can have no property, a tribe is nothing but an irrational whim.

It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.

At 6/16/2009 7:40:40 PM, wjmelements wrote:They cannot build up their economy due to government "aid". Because they don't have to do anything to live in a house and watch television all day, there is no reason for them to produce a surplus for market (wealth). If they do not produce, then we cannot tax them.

I don't believe that, not at all. Most successful businessman in the First Nations communities don't stay. Small businesses on the reservations stay exactly that - small businesses. When a large corporation does come in to build on their land, First Nations tend to try and get an unbalanced deal for themselves, which results in the government coming in and trying to mediate and etc.

I can agree that if you're supporting them, it is pretty hard to tax them, but it isn't necessarily easy to get them to help themselves, especially when they're destitute, their land is destitute, their commercial enterprise or availability for commercial enterprise is destitute, etc. Because of this, you can't just turn off the aid. Do you seriously expect commercial enterprise to come flocking to them, especially given the fact that even on the encouragement of the government they don't want to flock to them anyways?

It's so easy to get people to rely on government, but so hard to get them to stop...

So, right now, our tax dollars are going towards letting people watch TV all day without raising a finger?Why does the government give them TV?There is only one possibility: to expose them to liberal bias.If I can prove that they block FOX, this would be affirmed.I'm just making mountains out of molehills here.

At 6/16/2009 8:00:23 PM, mongeese wrote:It's so easy to get people to rely on government, but so hard to get them to stop...

So, right now, our tax dollars are going towards letting people watch TV all day without raising a finger?Why does the government give them TV?There is only one possibility: to expose them to liberal bias.If I can prove that they block FOX, this would be affirmed.I'm just making mountains out of molehills here.

Lol! I don't think they block FOX. If they don't do it here, I doubt they'll do it there.

The entire reason Native Americans haven't improved (their situation sucked before the Europeans came along too) IS essentially the reservation system, as wjm pointed out. For all intents and purposes, Poejoe, the problem here is created by the "solution" you advocate.

Some do quite well by casinos and resorts, which they can operate tax free. Your idea of paradise, no? ;)

A sovereign nation isn't economically dependent on another sovereign nations.

Like our nation, which is economically dependent on the trade of nearly every other nation? Depends on how you use the phrase I guess. Keep in mind that several sovereign nations receive boatloads of aid from us for worse reasons, like placating other nations abroad.

Should I pay the debts of my great great grandpappy, whatever they are?

Continuing the analogy, if you would have inherited property from your great grandpappy, but that property was taken by force, wouldn't you attempt to sue to replevin your inheritance? Similar situation, except that in this case, all you're asking for is to not have what you've got taken away, and whatever compensation you contracted with the offender to receive as fair consideration for the loss of the property. The contracting agents remain the same ... the tribe and the federal government. So long as they remain the same, the agreement, and any terms in it, including terms re: consideration, are valid and binding on both.

Basically, you're arguing against freedom to contract and right to uninterrupted use of property. You're arguing for unrestricted eminent domain and the right to take property from those who possess it by force without remuneration. Really?

And no, by the way, the Native Americans have no "right" to the reservations. Rights are individual, not racial. Just like European Americans have no "Right" to the job that Mexican-Americans come in and do cheaper. If reservations were private property, it would be a different story, but a tribe can have no property, a tribe is nothing but an irrational whim.

Arguably, rights are imaginary and their imagination is essential to the support of any given society (which in turn keeps individuals safe(r)). I mean, if you want to argue that rights do or do not vest in something of their own accord, I have to ask if magical right fairies are flying around to make sure that we don't get our rights wrong. No? Then objectively (or as objectively as one can get), rights are man-made and exist for some given purpose. They have rational existence, related to survival. That existence is the support of a collective of organisms against internecine conflicts in order to ensure against destruction by other collectives.* The 'right' to property exists because material beings like material possessions, perhaps overmuch, and (bloody) conflicts would arise if people weren't willing to support other people's claims to property under an agreed upon set of rules. In this case, two cultures are existing side by side, and it is much easier to placate the weaker culture by giving credence to its claim than to demand its integration into the larger culture and suffer through the trauma of forced assimilation.

*Mostly. They also act as inducements for competing groups to assimilate into the 'freer' group.

The entire reason Native Americans haven't improved (their situation sucked before the Europeans came along too) IS essentially the reservation system, as wjm pointed out. For all intents and purposes, Poejoe, the problem here is created by the "solution" you advocate.

Some do quite well by casinos and resorts, which they can operate tax free. Your idea of paradise, no? ;)

Those are a very small "Some" indeed. And in paradise everyone is exempt from taxes, not the racial Chosen Ones :P.

A sovereign nation isn't economically dependent on another sovereign nations.

Like our nation, which is economically dependent on the trade of nearly every other nation? Depends on how you use the phrase I guess.

Trade and aid be two different things mon.

Keep in mind that several sovereign nations receive boatloads of aid from us for worse reasons, like placating other nations abroad.

Those are worse reasons?In any case, I don't consider the ones that need it "sovereign" either.

Should I pay the debts of my great great grandpappy, whatever they are?

Continuing the analogy, if you would have inherited property from your great grandpappy, but that property was taken by force, wouldn't you attempt to sue to replevin your inheritance?

No, actually. I'd sue for property I earned myself, but inheritance I can take or leave.

Similar situation, except that in this case, all you're asking for is to not have what you've got taken away

"I" (or the Indians) don't individually have it. They have constant welfare checks, but that's different.

and whatever compensation you contracted with the offender to receive as fair consideration for the loss of the property.

The offender is dead. I am not the offender, why should my dollars continue to go to compensating for a crime I cannot commit? When you contract for compensation, you can fairly contract with that person-- you cannot fairly enslave future generations.

The contracting agents remain the same ... the tribe and the federal government.

The federal government had no right to make such a contract.

Basically, you're arguing against freedom to contract

I'm arguing against freedom to contract for other people, in favor of freedom to control what contracts one is involved in. The Federal Government, again, has no rights to contract for me.

and right to uninterrupted use of property. You're arguing for unrestricted eminent domain and the right to take property from those who possess it by force without remuneration.

Now now, where did I say "Kick them off the land?" Last I checked, I said "Stop making it a reservation." I.e., no more support. See what they can make of the land.

And no, by the way, the Native Americans have no "right" to the reservations. Rights are individual, not racial. Just like European Americans have no "Right" to the job that Mexican-Americans come in and do cheaper. If reservations were private property, it would be a different story, but a tribe can have no property, a tribe is nothing but an irrational whim.

Arguably, rights are imaginary and their imagination is essential to the support of any given society (which in turn keeps individuals safe(r)). I mean, if you want to argue that rights do or do not vest in something of their own accord, I have to ask if magical right fairies are flying around to make sure that we don't get our rights wrong. No? Then objectively (or as objectively as one can get), rights are man-made and exist for some given purpose.

Rights are recognitions of what occurs when an individual is in isolation-- they are there to ensure that a human can at minimum try to live without interference from others he hasn't interfered with. The objective enforcement comes that if someone does interfere, they make it rational for other people to start interfering with them too, decreasing their odds of living a good life drastically.

They have rational existence, related to survival. That existence is the support of a collective of organisms

No, an individual. Collectives cannot be ends.

The 'right' to property exists because material beings like material possessions, perhaps overmuch, and (bloody) conflicts would arise if people weren't willing to support other people's claims to property under an agreed upon set of rules.

More or less, but there is again nothing collective about it. If you violate my property rights, what was once someone I should figure out how to trade with is now someone I should figure out how to eliminate as best I can.

In this case, two cultures are existing side by side, and it is much easier to placate the weaker culture by giving credence to its claim than to demand its integration into the larger culture and suffer through the trauma of forced assimilation.

How would the larger culture suffer "trauma" from no longer cutting checks to tribes, no longer protecting the reservations from those making property claims on the unused (unacquired, nonproperty) portions of it.

It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.

Those are a very small "Some" indeed. And in paradise everyone is exempt from taxes, not the racial Chosen Ones :P.

In a homogeneous society, there are no racial chosen ones.

Trade and aid be two different things mon.

In intent, but not in effect. Both bind one nation to another. Arguably, trade can be worse, as pulling or altering pre-existing trade can seriously disrupt another nation's economy. You can't argue that OPEC doesn't have us by the nuts.

Those are worse reasons?

Yes. In one case we are seeking to appease broader national opinion that, prior to the subverting of our trade dominance, would have never mattered to us, at a steep cost. In the other we are pacifying a group that shares the same geographical region as ourselves to maintain order at a comparatively lower cost.

In any case, I don't consider the ones that need it "sovereign" either.

Consistent. Fair enough.

No, actually. I'd sue for property I earned myself, but inheritance I can take or leave.

Consistent. Fair enough.

The offender is dead. I am not the offender, why should my dollars continue to go to compensating for a crime I cannot commit? When you contract for compensation, you can fairly contract with that person-- you cannot fairly enslave future generations.

You may not be, but the federal government is (for the most part ... some blame obviously falls to colonial governments, although there is an argument for the assumption of their outstanding obligations into any state governments that acted as their heirs). Nations are held accountable to other nations for their actions as nations, including their actions regarding default on contractual obligations. If they weren't, we couldn't impose sanctions on other nations.

The contracting agents remain the same ... the tribe and the federal government.

The federal government had no right to make such a contract.

Yes, it did. 'Rights' related to the federal government only exist as allowed by the Constitution. Congress has the power "to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes." The Indian Tribes were sovereigns. Congress gave them land grants using its authority under eminent domain in order to appease the tribes and unify the country. Once the land passed from the United States to the tribes, it became theirs, subject to whatever covenants were provided with the grant.

I'm arguing against freedom to contract for other people, in favor of freedom to control what contracts one is involved in. The Federal Government, again, has no rights to contract for me.

The federal government, once again, contracted for itself, unless you're arguing that you owned the tribal lands prior to their purchase. I don't think many grants have been handed out these past 19 years.

Now now, where did I say "Kick them off the land?" Last I checked, I said "Stop making it a reservation." I.e., no more support. See what they can make of the land.

Breach of contract in some cases. Not an awful recommendation though if it runs with a grant from Congress to allow the tribes commercial use and development of their property (that right does not exist for every reservation grant).

Rights are recognitions of what occurs when an individual is in isolation-- they are there to ensure that a human can at minimum try to live without interference from others he hasn't interfered with. The objective enforcement comes that if someone does interfere, they make it rational for other people to start interfering with them too, decreasing their odds of living a good life drastically.

In isolation no person does much of anything. You could be the most brilliant mind in the world, and dream up a great civilization that creates many wonderful things, but if you're all alone, nothing would ever be accomplished. Rights have to exist as limitations upon action conducive to the preservation of organisms as elements within a group to matter. People only hold as rights that which they find necessary to keep safe themselves by harmony in their society.

No, an individual. Collectives cannot be ends.

Technically, the individuals within the collectives are the ends, seeing as how it is collective self preservation that brings them together. In a perfect world under one society, collectives would not be ends because they would not exist. This is not reality.

More or less, but there is again nothing collective about it. If you violate my property rights, what was once someone I should figure out how to trade with is now someone I should figure out how to eliminate as best I can.

Exactly. But if you and Bob represent one society and are trying to kill each other off, you have no effective way of dealing with Sam and Niel, who represent another society and intend on eliminating yours. Assuming they get along, they need merely wait for you two to be at each others throats to come in and eliminate the both of you, or, if one of you succeeds in eliminating the other, to subsume the remainder of your society into their own. Rational self interest includes interest in the harmony of your own society.

How would the larger culture suffer "trauma" from no longer cutting checks to tribes, no longer protecting the reservations from those making property claims on the unused (unacquired, nonproperty) portions of it.

The tribes would likely protest and some members could forseeably take lethal or detrimental action against individuals violating their territory, then claim sovereign immunity to the extent such action was permissible by reservation grant and they were operating under tribal approval.

The United States has many undeveloped areas within the country ... France couldn't just walk in and claim those because the property was undeveloped. Development is not necessary to claim ownership.

At 6/17/2009 6:17:22 AM, Lexicaholic wrote:The United States has many undeveloped areas within the country ... France couldn't just walk in and claim those because the property was undeveloped. Development is not necessary to claim ownership.

That's a silly analogy. Undeveloped land in the United States is still owned (probably by the government). The American Indians didn't believe in land ownership. They lived under a "progressive" Green-Communist Odyssey: working only enough to subsist.

Capitalist nations conquered them, and they signed treaties to live on reservations where they could continue their culture WITHOUT GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE...

Now, they've abandoned their culture, and government has given them the means to subsist and live in a comfortable Western fashion.

They've trashed the land they live in.

Why, again, are they (who were born into it, not they who were actually abused,) entitled to exclusive land and a work-free life?

Those are a very small "Some" indeed. And in paradise everyone is exempt from taxes, not the racial Chosen Ones :P.

In a homogeneous society, there are no racial chosen ones.

I'm talking about the United States, which is not homogenous, and does have racial chosen ones.

Trade and aid be two different things mon.

In intent, but not in effect.

Yes, in effect. One you get something equal in value out of. Two you don't.

Both bind one nation to another.

To varying degrees, but that is not the only criterion on which they should be compared.

Arguably, trade can be worse, as pulling or altering pre-existing trade can seriously disrupt another nation's economy.

Pulling out or altering preexisting aid does what?

You can't argue that OPEC doesn't have us by the nuts.

Doesn't have me by the nuts, I don't drive. Maybe you mon.Besides, electric cars be developin'. If OPEC quits tomorrow, we adjust. Is it more expensive? Sure. But alternatives exist.

Those are worse reasons?

The offender is dead. I am not the offender, why should my dollars continue to go to compensating for a crime I cannot commit? When you contract for compensation, you can fairly contract with that person-- you cannot fairly enslave future generations.

You may not be, but the federal government is (for the most part ... some blame obviously falls to colonial governments, although there is an argument for the assumption of their outstanding obligations into any state governments that acted as their heirs). Nations are held accountable to other nations for their actions as nations, including their actions regarding default on contractual obligations. If they weren't, we couldn't impose sanctions on other nations.

Sure we could. We'd just have to end those sanctions each time the government changes the relevant criterion. Which we kind of do.

The contracting agents remain the same ... the tribe and the federal government.

The federal government had no right to make such a contract.

Yes, it did. 'Rights' related to the federal government only exist as allowed by the Constitution.

I said "Right," not "Legal ability."

Congress has the power "to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes." The Indian Tribes were sovereigns.

This isn't commerce just so ya know.

I'm arguing against freedom to contract for other people, in favor of freedom to control what contracts one is involved in. The Federal Government, again, has no rights to contract for me.

The federal government, once again, contracted for itself, unless you're arguing that you owned the tribal lands prior to their purchase.

I'm arguing that I own my money that gets taxed and continues to go into the program.

Now now, where did I say "Kick them off the land?" Last I checked, I said "Stop making it a reservation." I.e., no more support. See what they can make of the land.

Breach of contract in some cases. Not an awful recommendation though if it runs with a grant from Congress to allow the tribes commercial use and development of their property (that right does not exist for every reservation grant).

No grant necessary, just stop stopping them from commercially developing it lol. Any currently occupied land is fair game for the inhabitants, unoccupied land fair game for whoever.

Rights are recognitions of what occurs when an individual is in isolation-- they are there to ensure that a human can at minimum try to live without interference from others he hasn't interfered with. The objective enforcement comes that if someone does interfere, they make it rational for other people to start interfering with them too, decreasing their odds of living a good life drastically.

In isolation no person does much of anything.

They can live, freely. That's superior to life as a slave. Is society helpful? Only to the extent it does not enslave.

You could be the most brilliant mind in the world, and dream up a great civilization that creates many wonderful things, but if you're all alone, nothing would ever be accomplished. Rights have to exist as limitations upon action conducive to the preservation of organisms as elements within a group to matter.

No, rights matter in isolation too. They are just automatically granted there, and have to be used much more often :).

No, an individual. Collectives cannot be ends.

Technically, the individuals within the collectives are the ends, seeing as how it is collective self preservation that brings them together. In a perfect world under one society, collectives would not be ends because they would not exist. This is not reality.

Collectives in the sense you speak of, like tribes, for all intents and purposes don't exist. Tribes are not homogenous, they do not all share the same ends, thus they can't be ends.Corporations, perhaps, can be limited ends, because everyone who signs on has the same ends. The difference is whether the group is voluntary.

More or less, but there is again nothing collective about it. If you violate my property rights, what was once someone I should figure out how to trade with is now someone I should figure out how to eliminate as best I can.

Exactly. But if you and Bob represent one society and are trying to kill each other off, you have no effective way of dealing with Sam and Niel, who represent another society and intend on eliminating yours.

I don't?I rather think I stand a chance against three people, only two of whom are united. Not a great chance, but a chance better than being a slave to Bob.

How would the larger culture suffer "trauma" from no longer cutting checks to tribes, no longer protecting the reservations from those making property claims on the unused (unacquired, nonproperty) portions of it.

The tribes would likely protest and some members could forseeably take lethal or detrimental action against individuals violating their territory

So in other words try what they tried centuries ago, except with lower population relative to ours, more alcoholism, and in general no reasonable chance of success.

then claim sovereign immunity to the extent such action was permissible by reservation grant and they were operating under tribal approval.

Sovereignty doesn't mean anything when you lose, not since Nuremberg anyway.

The United States has many undeveloped areas within the country ... France couldn't just walk in and claim those because the property was undeveloped.

A French company could.There is a difference between jurisdiction and property.

Development is not necessary to claim ownership.

Rightfully, it is. The right to property is a consequence of the right to liberty, one can't claim one's actions are interfered with by taking something unless their efforts led to it being what it is.

It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.

I'm talking about the United States, which is not homogenous, and does have racial chosen ones.

Technically the reservations are not the United States. Why don't we argue that the US take control of Japan? Or Puerto Rico? One has no military might thanks to us, the other is a protectorate.

Yes, in effect. One you get something equal in value out of. Two you don't.

Aid keeps other nations from trying to loot us (if not directly out of fear of MAD, then indirectly through trade agreements and political isolation).

You can't argue that OPEC doesn't have us by the nuts.

Doesn't have me by the nuts, I don't drive. Maybe you mon.

Yes me. Me and any business that relies on transportation. That's just about all of them.

Besides, electric cars be developin'. If OPEC quits tomorrow, we adjust. Is it more expensive? Sure. But alternatives exist.

They do. But what's better, assuming that the objective is reached either way: gradual progress that causes minimal disruption to society and therefore minimal harm to individuals, or a sudden drastic change that causes major disruption and definite harm to some individuals?

Sure we could. We'd just have to end those sanctions each time the government changes the relevant criterion. Which we kind of do.

Explain this in more detail please. I would like to understand what exactly this statement means and from whence it is derived.

The contracting agents remain the same ... the tribe and the federal government.

The federal government had no right to make such a contract.

Yes, it did. 'Rights' related to the federal government only exist as allowed by the Constitution.

I said "Right," not "Legal ability."

There are no magical rights. There are only allowances that people make before they choose not to tolerate it anymore.

Congress has the power "to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes." The Indian Tribes were sovereigns.

This isn't commerce just so ya know.

I'm establishing the sovereignty of the Indian Tribes. Congress has eminent domain, and can swap land and make funding arrangements as it pleases. The only rule is that if it takes your land, it has to pay you.

I'm arguing that I own my money that gets taxed and continues to go into the program.

No, you own your government, because you pay for it. Unfortunately, you're one of several (million) owners.

No grant necessary, just stop stopping them from commercially developing it lol. Any currently occupied land is fair game for the inhabitants, unoccupied land fair game for whoever.

The land is theirs ... technically outside US jurisdiction (grants (and some bad court decisions) are what establish jurisdiction otherwise). Attempts to grab land by adverse possession would be the equivalent of conquest by foreign invaders ... you couldn't expect them to just give up without a fight anymore than you would if someone invaded your country ... and it looks bad.

I agree that Indian tribes should be allowed commercial development, and the right to sell land with a similar eminent domain practiced by the US (can reclaim, but must pay).

They can live, freely. That's superior to life as a slave. Is society helpful? Only to the extent it does not enslave.

They have autonomy, but to live freely you need the agreement of others who would impose upon you to not impose ... freedom requires choice in the real world, full of people as it is.

No, rights matter in isolation too. They are just automatically granted there, and have to be used much more often :).

Rights aren't granted unless you think you can grant them to yourself. You have autonomy, not rights ... rights are societal guarantees of freedom against imposition from others, not of the ability to act without imposition. Complete autonomy may be better for the individual than rights, but it's impossible to achieve in a populated world.

Collectives in the sense you speak of, like tribes, for all intents and purposes don't exist. Tribes are not homogenous, they do not all share the same ends, thus they can't be ends.

They share this end: survival of the collective's constituents and continuation of their acquired knowledge through culture.

Corporations, perhaps, can be limited ends, because everyone who signs on has the same ends. The difference is whether the group is voluntary.

Every group is voluntary. Expatriation exists for a reason. In the event the collective no longer meets its ends, revolution ends its stay.

I don't?I rather think I stand a chance against three people, only two of whom are united. Not a great chance, but a chance better than being a slave to Bob.

Very good. You have called me on an absolute statement. Very well ... your chance is diminished. If you and Bob worked together, it would be 2 v 2. If you stand apart, it is 1 v 3 for both of you and 3 v 1 for both of them. Assuming similar physiology and reasoning skills in all actors, which side has the better chance?

So in other words try what they tried centuries ago, except with lower population relative to ours, more alcoholism, and in general no reasonable chance of success.

These days more people understand monkey wrenching as a concept. There's more than one way to skin that cat.

Sovereignty doesn't mean anything when you lose, not since Nuremberg anyway.

It does while you haven't. Remember, other sovereigns get antsy when one picks on another. More than a few nations would find it deplorable for the US to subsume tribal land.

A French company could.There is a difference between jurisdiction and property.

They could claim it, if they purchased it. The territory still being in the US, it would be subject to eminent domain. Which means it still really isn't the French company's, it's the collective's.

Rightfully, it is. The right to property is a consequence of the right to liberty, one can't claim one's actions are interfered with by taking something unless their efforts led to it being what it is.

There are no magic rights. How many copyrights do you see violated online? Authors created their works. They should have a right to control the property. It isn't happening.

Because people have decided not to accept the validity of the right.

(Not that I agree with it ... it's just how it is. Arguably a society that rewards production is more productive, and therefore better for its individuals and the collective whole. Rational enough.)

Technically the reservations are not the United States. Why don't we argue that the US take control of Japan? Or Puerto Rico? One has no military might thanks to us, the other is a protectorate.

Neither Japan nor Puerto Rico to my knowledge get welfare checks from the US gov't.

Aid keeps other nations from trying to loot us (if not directly out of fear of MAD, then indirectly through trade agreements and political isolation).

That's called tribute.

They do. But what's better, assuming that the objective is reached either way: gradual progress that causes minimal disruption to society and therefore minimal harm to individuals, or a sudden drastic change that causes major disruption and definite harm to some individuals?

Depends on which individuals. There are a lot of individuals who piss me off and would harm me less if they were harmed, as they'd have less time and resources to harm me.

Explain this in more detail please. I would like to understand what exactly this statement means and from whence it is derived.

Sanctions are things you do to governments when they commit specific acts you don't like, in the hopes of getting them to stop in exchanging for stopping the sanctions.

There are no magical rights. There are only allowances that people make before they choose not to tolerate it anymore.

Rights are statements about what they should "tolerate," so to speak, given that the consequences of not "tolerating" it result in them not being tolerated and otherwise having their prospects worsened. They are not statements about what they currently do "tolerate."

I'm establishing the sovereignty of the Indian Tribes. Congress has eminent domain, and can swap land and make funding arrangements as it pleases. The only rule is that if it takes your land, it has to pay you.

I wish it followed that rule, but meh. Point is that this doesn't establish sovereignty. Sovereigns don't get regulated by other sovereigns.

No, you own your government, because you pay for it. Unfortunately, you're one of several (million) owners.

A slave pays for a plantation by his labor. Does he own the plantation? No, that's silly. In order to own it, it has to be up to YOU whether you pay for it and continue to own it.

The land is theirs ... technically outside US jurisdiction (grants (and some bad court decisions) are what establish jurisdiction otherwise). Attempts to grab land by adverse possession would be the equivalent of conquest by foreign invaders ... you couldn't expect them to just give up without a fight anymore than you would if someone invaded your country

If someone invaded the United States, who was to the United States what the United States is to these tribes, in this fashion, I would celebrate, not fight. Unfortunately no such actor exists.

I agree that Indian tribes should be allowed commercial development, and the right to sell land with a similar eminent domain practiced by the US (can reclaim, but must pay).

Keep in mind you don't agree with me on that last account, I'm against eminent domain.

They have autonomy, but to live freely you need the agreement of others who would impose upon you to not impose ... freedom requires choice in the real world, full of people as it is.

This is taking something out of context. In order to be free, you need consent-- in a society. Without a society, you're automatically free.

Rights aren't granted unless you think you can grant them to yourself.

They are granted by reality.

You have autonomy, not rights

The same thing.

rights are societal guarantees of freedom against imposition from others, not of the ability to act without imposition

In a society, the freedom from imposition from others IS the ability to act without imposition.

Complete autonomy may be better for the individual than rights, but it's impossible to achieve in a populated world.

The only "Completeness" of rights as I describe is to act as you wish to the things that no one else has made into nonnatural things. This is quite possible in a populated world, the list of nonnatural things simply increases from zero.

They share this end: survival of the collective's constituents and continuation of their acquired knowledge through culture.

No, they don't share that. Suicide exists, murder exists, etc.

Every group is voluntary. Expatriation exists for a reason.

It's not voluntary if your only other option is to "expatriate" to a place that doesn't exist. There is no place I can go to escape the system I complain about, in fact, many countries openly conspire to prevent such places from occurring (E.g. the Antarctic Treaty System.

In the event the collective no longer meets its ends, revolution ends its stay.

The possibility of revolution means that SOMEONE volunteered-- specifically, a set of people that together has a preponderance of power did. It does not mean that everyone is a volunteer.

Very good. You have called me on an absolute statement. Very well ... your chance is diminished. If you and Bob worked together, it would be 2 v 2. If you stand apart, it is 1 v 3 for both of you and 3 v 1 for both of them. Assuming similar physiology and reasoning skills in all actors, which side has the better chance?

They do, IF they have any chance, which is a factor that must be paid attention to. If you sacrifice what you're fighting for for increased odds of defeating the enemy, you have no "chance" of acquiring what you were fighting for. I do not know what the opponent's terms are though I can guess I wouldn't like them, but I know, in this hypothetical, that any agreement with Bob other than one compatible with my ends precludes ANY possibility of me having any "chance" at what I was aiming for, unless the agreement is merely provisional, i.e., exists only for the course of the external threat.

These days more people understand monkey wrenching as a concept. There's more than one way to skin that cat.

In this instance, their odds of victory over me are still low.Whereas if we continue to offer them tribute, as your arguments make clear it is, I don't know whether they've won, but I've certainly lost.

It does while you haven't. Remember, other sovereigns get antsy when one picks on another. More than a few nations would find it deplorable for the US to subsume tribal land.

Technically, to my knowledge, there isn't much international recognition of tribal sovereignty. The traditional standard seems to be UN membership, and I don't think they have it.

They could claim it, if they purchased it.

Or, rightfully, if they originally acquired it.

The territory still being in the US, it would be subject to eminent domain.

Remember, I was saying it "could" in the context of the system I'm advocating, not our current system.

There are no magic rights. How many copyrights do you see violated online? Authors created their works. They should have a right to control the property. It isn't happening.

Which doesn't address my point at all. I'm advocating, and here you are pointing out it isn't being accomplished, which I already knew. The question is how to get it accomplished.

Because people have decided not to accept the validity of the right.

(Not that I agree with it ... it's just how it is. Arguably a society that rewards production is more productive, and therefore better for its individuals and the collective whole. Rational enough

So, what was most of this argument about, aside from the relative value of cooperation versus integrity and such? You're saying we haven't pulled it off. We both already knew that, it's obvious. If you don't disagree with my statements about what form of society should be aimed for, you should be disputing a much smaller number of my statements lol.

It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.

So, what was most of this argument about, aside from the relative value of cooperation versus integrity and such? You're saying we haven't pulled it off. We both already knew that, it's obvious. If you don't disagree with my statements about what form of society should be aimed for, you should be disputing a much

--I'll just respond to this for now. I'm arguing pragmatism. There are limited resources in the world. There are potentially infinite people in the world, because they breed like rabbits. People are mostly greedy and, where not greedy, people still need a space to stand on to call their own. If anyone who works property owns it, then what happens when someone works property nearby to the detriment of another? As a simple argument, assume there is a square:

-----------------------I A B II II C D I-----------------------

Fit four people (A,B,C,D) into that square. If these four people all have similar but non-competitive plans to develop their plots, they should be fine. They can develop their plots to an equal extent.

Hypothetical I:Now, assume a mountain exists directly between the plots of two of the people, like a boundary line. What if one person, let's say A, wants to sculpt a mountain into a series of old people's heads, while the other person, let's say B, wants to sculpt the same mountain into a vast mountain mansion? Let's say they both get to the mountain first. They both plan on working the mountain. Problem: If the mountain is sculpted and hollowed out, it will likely collapse. The solution would be for the two individuals to get together and compromise. But let's say they don't want to. They refuse to go back on their visions, and both start working the mountain at once. It collapses. Who benefits?

Hypothetical II:A stream runs through C and D's property. D desires to use the water to grow crops, particularly grain, so that everyone can live through winter. D is a bit of a pragmatist. C, on the other hand, wants a private lake, so that he can have fun swimming. The river runs from C's property onto D's. C diverts the stream for his own uses, leaving D's property fallow. D can not cultivate any food. A and B are too busy yelling at each other over a collapsed mountain to grow food. C hardly cares, he lives in the moment. D can do nothing without the water. Winter comes. Everyone dies. Who benefits?

Hypothetical IIIA,B,C, and D are "fruitful and multiply": they have six children each. All of the children have competing ambitions and desires related to real property. Many of these ambitions conflict. Whose is valid?

Obviously, the world is much bigger, but as hypothetical three shows, it isn't so big that everyone has enough space to do what they want. That's why I like the internet ... limitless possibilities for everyone. Perhaps a perfect society of self interested individuals could exist some day, but not until people are given a limitless pallet upon which to work their desires.

So, what was most of this argument about, aside from the relative value of cooperation versus integrity and such? You're saying we haven't pulled it off. We both already knew that, it's obvious. If you don't disagree with my statements about what form of society should be aimed for, you should be disputing a much

--I'll just respond to this for now. I'm arguing pragmatism. There are limited resources in the world. There are potentially infinite people in the world, because they breed like rabbits. People are mostly greedy and, where not greedy, people still need a space to stand on to call their own. If anyone who works property owns it, then what happens when someone works property nearby to the detriment of another? As a simple argument, assume there is a square:

-----------------------I A B II II C D I-----------------------

Fit four people (A,B,C,D) into that square. If these four people all have similar but non-competitive plans to develop their plots, they should be fine. They can develop their plots to an equal extent.

Hypothetical I:Now, assume a mountain exists directly between the plots of two of the people, like a boundary line. What if one person, let's say A, wants to sculpt a mountain into a series of old people's heads, while the other person, let's say B, wants to sculpt the same mountain into a vast mountain mansion? Let's say they both get to the mountain first. They both plan on working the mountain. Problem: If the mountain is sculpted and hollowed out, it will likely collapse.

They can't possibly "Both reach it first."

The solution would be for the two individuals to get together and compromise. But let's say they don't want to. They refuse to go back on their visions, and both start working the mountain at once. It collapses. Who benefits?

Both learn something.

Hypothetical II:A stream runs through C and D's property. D desires to use the water to grow crops, particularly grain, so that everyone can live through winter. D is a bit of a pragmatist. C, on the other hand, wants a private lake, so that he can have fun swimming. The river runs from C's property onto D's. C diverts the stream for his own uses, leaving D's property fallow. D can not cultivate any food. A and B are too busy yelling at each other over a collapsed mountain to grow food. C hardly cares, he lives in the moment. D can do nothing without the water. Winter comes. Everyone dies. Who benefits?

Did D start farming before C diverted the stream, or the opposite? Since streams move, and aren't fixed, if D got there first, he has the right to the flow of water for his crops unless nature takes it away first.If C diverted the stream first, D is really a ****ing moron for trying to farm there.

Hypothetical IIIA,B,C, and D are "fruitful and multiply": they have six children each. All of the children have competing ambitions and desires related to real property. Many of these ambitions conflict. Whose is valid?

They can if they start out existence born there at exactly the same time and raised in the same nearby house. Let's make them twin brothers. Not that I feel the need to be this nit-picky, but what the hey, nit-pickery seems to be where we're headed ...

Both learn something.

Only if they choose to. At the expense of the mountain's potential.

Did D start farming before C diverted the stream, or the opposite? Since streams move, and aren't fixed, if D got there first, he has the right to the flow of water for his crops unless nature takes it away first.If C diverted the stream first, D is really a ****ing moron for trying to farm there.

Remember, I never said that C was on the same property as D. C could be far enough away as to be unaware of D, depending on the size of the plots. Additionally, D's property could have been the only arable land suited to farming prior to C's diversion of the stream. If you have a problem with the water source being a stream, make it a river, or better a shared lake, which one tries to divert water from for crops and the other tries to divert water from for agriculture.

If need be, I could posit that C and D both began their respective projects at the same time, each unaware of the other. Unlikely, but not impossible.

The real point isn't about minor details, it's the problem of the interdependency of details in conflicting interests.

Real property is a term of art, but I'll play along. Is the ground that a person stands upon that person's, for the moment he is standing there, or the property of whoever kicks that person off to do something with it? The first person needed that property for standing. The second needed that property as part of a project using the contiguous space. In reverse, let's say that one person is building a very large walled off fort, but hasn't touched a piece of land necessary to connect two walls of the fort. Someone comes across the untouched land in between the two walls and sets up a business. Now what?